Do the ways that local governments raise own-source revenue and/or use urban growth boundaries exert distinct influences on the occurrence of retail activity outside a metropolitan area's central places? This question is addressed in this paper through a regression analysis that also accounts for economic factors that provide clear reasons for retail activity to locate in non-central places. Results indicate that state-wide reliance by municipalities on some forms of own-source revenue exert significant positive influences on retail sales in non-central places in metropolitan areas in the western US. 'Excessive' retail decentralisation generated through this 'fiscalisation of land use' is presented within the widely discussed concept of 'urban sprawl'. The continuing presence of one form of urban growth boundary is also found to reduce retail decentralisation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Advisory Council On Intergovernmental Relations ( 1987) Changing Public Attitudes on Government and Taxes. Washington, DC.
2.
Anderson, J.E. and Wassmer, R.W. (2000) Bidding for Business: The Efficacy of Local Economic Development Incentives in a Metropolitan Area. Kalamazoo, MI: W. E. Upjohn Institute.
3.
Atkinson, G. and Oelson, T. (1996) Urban sprawl as a path dependent process, Journal of Economic Issues, 30, pp. 607-609.
4.
Bartik, T.J. (1991) Who Benefits from State and Local Economic Development Policies?Kalamazoo, MI: W. E. Upjohn Institute.
5.
Black, J.T. (1996) The economics of sprawl, Urban Land, March, pp. 52-53.
6.
Brueckner, J.K. (2000) Urban sprawl: lessons from urban economics. Department of Economics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (mimeograph).
7.
Brueckner, J.K. and Fansler, D.A. (1983) The economics of urban sprawl: theory and evidence on the spatial sizes of cities, Review of Economics and Statistics , 65, pp. 479-482.
8.
Brueckner, J.K. and Kim, H.A. (2000) Urban sprawl and the property tax. Department of Economics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (mimeograph).
9.
Chapman, J.I. (1998) Proposition 13: some unintended consequences. San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California (available at: http://www.ppic.org/publications/ocassional/chapman.occ.pdf).
10.
Dipasquale, D. and Wheaton, W.C. (1996) Urban Economics and Real Estate Markets. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
11.
Downs, A. (1999) Some realities about sprawl and urban decline, Housing Policy Debate, 10, pp. 955-974.
12.
Ewing, R.H. (1997) Is Los Angeles-style sprawl desirable?, American Planning Association Journal, Winter, pp. 107-126.
13.
Ewing, R.H. (1994) Characteristics, causes, and effects of sprawl: a literature review, Environmental and Urban Issues, Winter, pp. 1-15.
14.
Fischel, W.A. (1985) The Economics of Zoning Laws: A Property Rights Approach to American Land Use Controls. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press.
15.
Gordon, P. and Richardson, H.W. (1997) Are compact cities a desirable planning goal?, American Planning Association Journal, Winter, pp. 95-106.
16.
Harvey, R.O. and Clark, W.A.V. (1965) The nature and economics of urban sprawl, Land Economics, 41, pp. 1-9.
17.
Innes, J.E. and Booher, D.E. (1999) Metropolitan development as a complex system: a new approach to sustainability, Economic Development Quarterly , 13, pp. 141-156.
18.
Johnson, K. (2000) Bills attack cities' sales tax reliance, Sacramento Business Journal (available at http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2000/05/01/story5.html).
19.
Kennedy, P. (1992) A Guide to Econometrics, 3rd edn. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press .
20.
Kotin, A. and Peiser, R. (1997) Public/private joint ventures for high volume retailers; who benefits?, Urban Studies, 34, pp. 1971-1986.
21.
Ladd, H.F. (1998) Land use regulation as a fiscal tool, in: W. E. Oates (Ed.) Local Government Tax and Land Use Policies in the United States: Understanding the Links, pp. 55-81. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
22.
Lang, R.E. (2000) Office Sprawl: The Evolving Geography of Business . Washington, DC: Brooking s Institution .
23.
Lewis, P. and Barbour, E. (1999) California Cities and the Local Sales Tax. San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California (available at http://www.ppic.org/publications/PPIC121/PPIC121.pdf/index.html).
24.
Miezkowski, P. and Mills, E.S. (1993) The causes of metropolitan suburbanization, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 7, pp. 135-147.
25.
Mills, E.S. (1999) Truly smart smart growth, Illinois Real Estate Letter, Summer, pp. 1-7.
26.
Mills, E.S. (1972) Urban Economics. Glenview, IL : Scott Foresman.
27.
Misczynski, D.J. (1986) The fiscalization of land use, in: J. J. Kirlin and D. R. Winkler (Ed.) California Policy Choices, pp. 127-150. Sacramento, CA: School of Public Administration, University of Southern California.
28.
Muth, R.F. (1969) Cities and Housing. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
29.
Myers, D. and Kitsuse, A. (1999) The debate over future density of development: an interpretive review. Working Paper, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge, MA.
30.
Nelson, A.C. (2001) Urban containment policy. Department of City and Regional Planning, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta (mimeograph).
